PGov - Delegate Communication Thread

Delegate Name: PGov
Delegate Address: 0x3fb19771947072629c8eee7995a2ef23b72d4c8a
Forum Handle: @PGov

Core Principles:

  • Transparency: Clear communication with votes and explanations of reasoning
  • Growth: We see great potential for Optimism and look forward to helping the chain grow as much as possible
  • Real-World Use Cases: We see great use cases in the future for RWA and web2/web3 connecting and look forward to seeing where the RWA uses cases will go

Delegate Statement:

We’re a team of dedicated governance enthusiasts who have been in the crypto governance space for almost two years now! Optimism is uniquely positioned and has some of the most unique governance initiatives we’ve seen across all of defi!

Our primary goal is to use the knowledge we have learned in the past few years to help grow OP and its community. We’ve been keeping track of OP since day one and are excited to be here for the ride!

Conflicts of Interest & Resolution:

  • Abstain from the vote if a situation arises a conflict of interest, and clearly state on forums the conflict.

Protocol Delegation Renewal Program

We voted FOR: The first trial of this worked well for protocols in our opinion and are confident his renewal will work just as well if not better after removing some of the kinks and improving policies. Overall, we love the concept of some of the largest protocols getting involved in governance on the chain that they are deployed on and encourage more teams to do similar.

Intent 1: Budget Proposal
Intent 2: Budget Proposal
Intent 3: Budget Proposal
Intent 4: Budget Proposal

We voted FOR: Voting in support of all four budget proposals for the respective intents. This is a great experiment for season 4 in our opinion and we’re looking forward to seeing how these play out. Overall, we’re super interested to see what develops with Intent 1: “Progress Towards Technical Decentralization.”

Inflation Adjustment Proposal

We voted FOR: This is great from current token holders’ perspectives and makes sense. Given the distribution and allocation (or more like “un-allocation”) of the current OP, there’s no reason to inflate the total supply by 2% for now. We are happy to reevaluate this in the future.

Treasury Appropriation (Foundation Year 2 Budget Approval)

We voted FOR: Happy to see this symbolic budget request as a way of realizing the team doesn’t need more OP in the current state. Happy to see operation expenses were relatively low for this first year, however, we do think more can be done towards the decentralization of the protocol as a significantly less amount of what was projected to be airdropped has happened.

Council Reviewer Elections: Builders Grants

We voted Gonna.eth, Jack Anorak, Krzysztof Urbanski (kaereste or krst): Excited to see some of these newer faces getting involved and think that these 3 is the best group to lead this particular grant committee.

Council Reviewer Elections: Growth Experiments Grants

We voted Katie Garcia, Sugma.eth, GFX, StableLab, Michael Vander Meiden: Being mostly from the last season, we think this team did a great job and are well suited to do great work again this season. A notable addition is StableLab as we have worked with the team extensively in the past and believe they are well positioned to do great work on this committee.

Note: For this first round of votes, we are unable to vote with delegated voting power and so these are just our verbal support for now. This will change with future votes.

Mission Proposals Delegate Approvals

It’s been very interesting reading the mission proposals that have been debated in the forums. We just submitted approvals for what we think were three of the strongest proposals:

Thanks to all the teams for their hard work and proposal submissions!

If this is post voting a postmortem is not helpful. A discussion before voting will give immense clarity to OP holders who have delegated votes.

1 Like

If this is post voting a postmortem is not helpful. A discussion before voting will give immense clarity to OP holders who have delegated votes.

Intent $1, 1M OP

We voted Proposal 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E: We voted for all of the options except 1F. These all seem logical and make sense to us to try out and are well within our budget. Although there is ample “budget” for all, we think Spearbit is well enough funded internally to help produce the audit on their own and the 100k OP is not justified, maybe a smaller amount would have been better.

Intent #3, 1M OP

We voted Proposal 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, 3I, 3J, 3K: We voted for all of the mission proposals in Intent 3. This being that all of the larger budget items we thought were fully fledged out and well documented for next steps and milestones. A few of the other ones that we were a little iffy on were frankly not much funding and we believe could be useful and helpful going into the future with a high possibility of “happily” surprising the community in the future.

Intent #4, 3M OP

We voted Proposal 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F, 4I, 4J, 4K, 4L, 4M: We voted for all the options except 4G, 4H, and 4N as they were well written, provided a lot of perceived and future value to the ecosystem and didn’t find any big concerns. With respect to 4G, for 125k OP the co-design of gas fees is quite steep. Similar to the 67.5k OP requested by DAOStar in respect to the work done. Finally, we chose not to vote for 4N as we thought the outline was a bit too vague and we didn’t see the dollar cost benefit.


Intent 2 Budget Proposal 2

We voted FOR: We are confident in the intents that have recently been voted upon and believe this budget diversion is appropriate. We were one of the delegates to approve the forum post to a formal vote and are in approval of the proposal.